Happiness Happens Day

I just found out something that makes me...well, almost "happy". It's that something called Happiness Happens Day occurs annually on Aug. 8th. I think we are supposed to be happy or make someone happy on Happiness Happy Day. Well, even though I missed awareness of that day I was still happy on the 8th. The degree of happiness a person feels depends on what he or she thinks makes them happy and what they think makes you sad. No thing and no person is inherently happiness-producing or sadness-producing. So, this belief by the group that started Happiness Happy Day is probably a "sad" disappointment for those who are waiting for someone or something to make them happy.

That group that started Happiness Happy Day calls itself the Secret Society of Happy People. Hmmm Why do happy people want to keep it a secret that they are happy? They say that they believe happiness is contagious and that when more people talk about happy events and moments, it will be considered trendy for everyone to engage in it... and they will (be happier). The society encourages celebrating the day by exchanging gifts of silver (because as the old saying goes, "every cloud has a silver lining"), and by sharing happy memories or hosting a happy celebration.

What makes you happy? Is it an internal motivation or can something or someone instead make you happy (as opposed to just very satisfied for a short moment or two)? I know for certain that the things the Secret Society recommends as happiness motivations would make me more annoyed than happy. Check them yourself at the Society web site to see if you are on their happy wave length. http://www.sohp.com/
We both know my E mail isn't a happy celebration, and I am not going to send you silver gifts (not even silver coins) as the Society suggest we do to each other.

So if you expect happiness from me you are going to be saddened and might be better off forgetting about being happy today or any other day of the year. However, look at it from another angle. When my E mail ends and you are free from reading my stupidity, you'll probably be a much happier person. Have a happy day!

Teen Exhibitionism

Some remarks today about the growing number of 12 to 17 year old kids who are posting sexy pictures, self promoting music videos, and Yu tube eccentricities of themselves on line. I think it's a sign that the realty TV world has crept into their lives beyond the endless hours of time they spend rotting their brains watching those vapid shows on TV. They are becoming what they soak up in our vapid culture.

Surely, kids have always wanted to emulate adults who appeared as celebrities, who stared in magazines on TV or in the movies. But teens today aren't emulating real people who have real talent. Instead, there is more an attempt to be like the reality crowd that are far more allusion than substance. It's a desperate attempt by kids today to find an image. But is it a good image to copy the stupidity of the reality world?
Instead of studying or working for something of importance for their futures, they go online and create a false and gratuitous persona. Achievement for the teen exhibitionists is redefined as simply being the ability to attract attention. That's it!

If they have nothing to offer on line it does not matter, for to be seen by the most people, in whatever it is the teen shows him or herself as, is the entire point of it all. With today's technology, this sort of celebrity is not just a dream it is all to easy to achieve. Teens can create it for themselves. The new mantra is not substance, but rather appearance. Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! They chant as they degrade themselves in order to be seen by more and more people. Often the ones who most "succeed" only draw vicious comments, threats, sexual propositions and other real life degradations that do not help a teenager build self esteem and find a place in normal society.

The culture of childhood is being changed and the normal pre teen and teen years are disappearing as 12 year olds act, or pretend to act, like 18 year olds and older adults. Those things that young people once knew at 18, they now know at age 12. Innocence is lost and it is a crime, for through experiences that nudge our innocence we learn what the real world is and what it really expects of us. No one quite knows the effect of this is and will be. But I fear it is not good. Most importantly, too many teens seem to be growing up without learning that there is a distinction between respectable behavior and getting attention. Better adult role models would help. The selfish and clue less parenting we see everywhere being replaced with more responsible modeling today would be one remedy for much of this teen exhibitionism.

But are the parents of those teens any more realistic than their children? Maybe this is just the beginning of the 'Age Of Lost Innocence' for teenagers.

Imagining Descrimination

It seems every group that wants something special for itself uses the a particularly effective tactic here to get it. That would be, "I am being discriminated against, so do what I want". In most cases the discrimination is imagined and there are both laws and social norms that stop the discrimination that the special interest group imagines to be present. A good example of perceived discrimination is right here in the Oregon public schools where sixty Oregon school districts have been named in a complaint filed with the United States Justice Department for allegedly failing to provide high school girls with equal opportunities as boys to play sports, a violation of law passed in 1972 called, Title IX.

Title IX is a federal law that requires equal opportunities for males and females at institutions that receive public funds. That would mean that the schools must spend equal amounts of money on girls and boys sports teams. They have been doing that for many years, but sometimes a lack of interest by girls in a school in sports means some sports teams fold and there is no "opportunity for the ladies to participate in a particular sport.

The lawsuit lists the schools from largest to smallest in disparity as to who is violating the law. This calculation is the difference between the percentage of girls who are athletes compared to the percentage of overall female students. So in effect, when schools offers girls a sport and not enough of them show up to have a team, the litigants claim the schools are "discriminating" against females. How stupid! It is a fact that the role of girls and boys in society differs and that, not discrimination, is often why the two sexes behave differently. That's why there are so few boys who participate in cheer leading teams or in home economics cooking classes in schools (so, for example, does that mean there should also be a lawsuit against the schools for discriminating against boys?).

It is hard to blame a school system when it offers sports to females, but too few girls want to participate in them and they fold as a result. In fact, statistics show that most public high school and colleges in the U.S. actually spend more money on girls sports than on the boys, in order to keep them operating. Too, female sporting events are often poorly attended, meaning that there are fewer ticket buyers. And ironically, the boys sports, which sell well and make a profit, have funds taken from their teams to pay for the girls teams who are not self supporting. Seems to me that is a kind of discrimination against the male teams.

This kind of politically correct imagined discrimination is rife in the U.S., and the example I am giving in one this case shows the problem that is systemic in the U.S. When people imagine discrimination that is not there it hinders the entire society by disrupting the natural flow of the participants' interests. In many universities men's athletic teams have been disbanded, even when profit making, in order to create and pay for money losing female sports, a typical reverse sexual discrimination men are suffering here in school sporting enterprises. If one suggests to the universities that only those sports that can finance themselves with ticket sales should be allowed to operate, howls of protest arise because almost all female teams would have to disband if that were the case. Most university female athletic programs are paid for or heavily subsidized by the sales of tickets to male athletic events.

Here in Oregon and in other high schools across the nation, school systems work hard to keep female sports programs operating, and they currently have about the same number of participants as the boys sports teams do. Schools in the U.S are constantly surveying the girls and adding sports that girls want to play when a female sports team loses enough team members to continue to operate.

As society is structured today one would expect fewer females than males would participate in athletics, just as, for example, one would expect more females than males to like sewing clothes. The demonstration for prowess in sports is a stronger determination for male status because that is what society sees as the male role. I wish people here would stop playing the "discrimination game". That's one only suitable for losers.

No More Babies Flying First Class

Oh, I like a new fly policy Malaysian Air has instituted for its first class section (Yes, I know that I would not spend the money to fly first class....but it's still a good policy for those who do). Malaysia Air has just started to ban babies in the first-class sections of its jets, due to that annoying crying baby syndrome that passengers dread so much. It seems those high fare paying passengers in first class have complained a great deal about it and Malaysian Air has decided their business is more important than letting crying babies chase away the highest fare passengers. Hmmm Can the airlines also ban the adults who are crying because they didn't get their upgrades to first class? Haha It's just a thought.

This is a great decision that I hope will prompt other airlines to have more consideration for the general passenger crowd over the individual wants. Right now, flying is wholly undemocratic, favoring various kinds of passengers to the discomfort of the rest. Those passengers flying with babies can move to the rear of the plane where there is engine noise that will drown out some of the kiddy crying, which will be beneficial to the majority of the flying passengers. People who pay extra for their seats should at least be guaranteed a flight free from wailing kids.

There is an inequity one experiences when flying, and I have a few suggestions on improving the flight for all of us by stopping the privileges that are intended "for a few" mentality that the public is face with when flying. How about these things to make flying an experience that is more equal for us all?

- No more early boarding and special seating (the choice bulkhead seats are most often given to them) for "parents with children". Some of those "kids" are taller than their parents and one wonders why they need to have first boarding and seating privileges. If the child is over 2 years of age, he or she and the parents should board normally and not be given the best seats because they are younger.

- No more seating "upgrades". The professional upgraders should pay for improved seats, not be given them because they have to fly more often. The airlines can improve their profit margins (making the general passengers better off and more comfortable by having more resources available to care for the coach passengers) if they stop giving away expensive seats.

- Make passengers prove they are "disabled", need to be wheel chaired to their gate and given prime seats. In the U.S. just about anyone can get one of those doctor notes claiming disability, and the abuse of them with the intent of reaping special seating and boarding is a time delay and annoyance to the other flyers. The airlines should only provide such services for severely disabled passengers. The rest can pay extra for their tickets if they wish to claim disability limitation.

- Ban the use of cell phones while inside the plane, at any time...when the plane is in motion or even when it is not. Listening to idiots screaming on their phones is about as bad as the crying baby serenade. There is no necessity for anyone to use a cell phone on board, where passengers are trapped by space and must listen to inconsequential cell stupidity.

- Enforce the carry on bag rules. Letting some passengers drag full sized suitcases or extra bags on board delays the flight and also means some passengers have no place to store their carry-ons. When a passenger violates the carry-on limit he or she should be force to check in the bag at cost.

- Making people pay extra for a second seat if they are so obese that they spill into the adjoining seat. Who wants to sit in a seat with a fat guy leaning flesh to flesh the whole flight? Passengers should have the right to sit in a seat with normal space adjoining.

Well, those are a few suggestions to make flying a more democratic experience. Now it's your turn for some ideas too.

Religious Abuse

There was an interesting court case here in Portland, just ended with a guilty verdict and sentencing of 90 days jail time, probation and extensive counseling and observation on parenting and puts them on probation for three years with extensive parental skill counseling. The parents who were convicted, Timothy and Rebecca Weyland, were found guilty of child abuse and neglect after their daughter Alayna, now 18 months old, has an abnormal growth of blood vessels, known as a hemangioma. As part of the judge's sentence the Wylands must follow all medical recommendations, take Alayna to doctor's appointments and notify probation officers when spiritual healing methods are used on Alayna.

Shortly after birth, the hemangioma grew and engulfed her left eye. Instead of seeking treatment that would have cured the malady and prevented the baby's eyesight from being lost, the Weylands only "prayed" for her health. Doctors say that because of the Wyland "do nothing but pray" policy, Alayna is extremely unlikely to regain normal vision.

At the verdict the judge told the Wylands what should be common sense , but among some religious fanatics is not. "Your prayers should complement not compete with proper medical care." The case brings to mind that issue. At what point does personal religious belief become secondary to the safety and welfare of the child for which a parent is entrusted to care?

Those who think the Weylands had the right to seek whatever kind of cure they thought best for their daughter's illness think the verdict interferes with the constitutional rights of the parents, that religious rights take precedence in choice of medical treatments of a child. Opponents say that freedom is not unlimited. It comes with responsibility and that includes the protection of others from harm our freedom might cause, as in the necessity of quickly treating a child's medical problem, give the minor child can not seek that on his or her own.

A sub issue is how and when should the government of a nation can limit injurious conduct that emanates from adherence to a religious belief. Misguided behavior often stems from religious extremism, as in the case of the faith healing belief of the Weylands. But aside from that, one "religious" fact is clear from the Weyland case. God gave the Weylands brains. It's a tragedy that they didn't use them.

Downgrading The Art Of The Written Word

What's going on with modern literature? I have always contended that literature is the last intelligent medium still alive and functioning at a high level. Its probably because most dumb people don't read and therefore, few books are written for that intellectual level. But after a serious of completely air headed "celebrities" have issued books they claim they wrote (but which are all ghostwritten), perhaps Reality TV is coming to literature. Ugh! I don't like the sound of "Reality Literature".

The newest "author" is the very pretty and totally talent less reality TV star and, well, poser for the cameras and famous for nothing...Kim Kardashian. Kim has even signed up her sisters for a book writing brain trust., or so she says. This follows books that Reality celebrities Nicole Ritchie, "The Situation", Hillary Duff, Lauren Conrad (all "authors" but non readers!) and that creature they call "Snookie"? William Shakespeare...I warn you to stay in your grave and not peek at this atrocity.

How does a woman like Snookie, who says she has only read two books in her entire life, and is famous for fist fights with other women, drunken orgies, and sleeping with any thing wearing pants, have the education, background and experience to wrote a book? Uh, by having it ghostwritten do it for her, as all the other Reality TV celebrity books have. Sad to say, Snookie's book was on the New York Times best seller list. So what was once an art, the author, a single person who creates to stimulate our mind and our imaginations, has instead become a merchandise to be marketed by use of the name of non talented celebrities. Literature as merchandise and not as art, ouch! I am not sure who reads those kinds of books, but I am sure I don't want to discuss epistemology or any other philosophy with any of them.

Publishers love the non books because they sell, which indicts the intelligence of readership today and dumbs down literary standards with each Snookie essay that is printed. When pressed to acknowledge whether those "authors" actually wrote their books, they or their publishing houses all admit that each was ghostwritten. Some of the "authors" dictate into a tape recorder and others just lend their name and credit for the book.

Books have always been ghostwritten, but in the past the subjects were worthy people, intelligent individuals who allowed a more skilled professional writer to put their thoughts in print. John F Kennedy, the American President, won a Pulitzer Prize for his book 'Profiles in Courage', which was entirely written by Theodore Sorenson. There are many other examples. But I think the Kennedy story is far more worthy of a book deal than is the blabber from Kim Kardashian and her like.

What's the saddest fact of all about this corruption of the written word is that literary agents are chasing after the Snookie's of the world and begging them to sign book deals because... as the old P.T. Barnum line went, it's best to "Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people".

4th Amendment Underpants

I know we Americans are crazy and usually invent the wildest of ideas and products. But have you heard of the latest , the 4th Amendment Underwear? It's men's boxers and women's underwear that have the 4th Amendment printed on them in an ink that is designed to shine bright in those full-body airport scanners. Uh, it's sort of a funny half hearted protest at the stupidity of all those time wasting, annoying, humiliating and totally useless airport searches we all endure thanks to one event (the September 11, 2001 airplane crashes into the New York City World Trade Center) and the stupidity of politicians who want to earn gold stars and votes by "keeping us safe" from terrorists by wasting billions of dollars in pretend to find terrorist airport searches.

So every time the TSA security X-ray officers look at our bodies via their X rays, they are confronted with the amendment that protects against unreasonable searches just as they scan someone's privates. Well, give the person who came up with this idea a round of a plus for being the best capitalist of the day. The underpants have sold out their first production line supply and the maker is rolling in money as a result. Maybe the back side of the underpants should have a something for the screeners to read as well. Maybe "Kiss Here If You Love Terrorism..Or My Ass"?

Humor and commentary pants aside, the saddest part is the TSA's crazy airport inspections do nothing to improve security. The odds of getting taken out by plane bomber on your flight have been computed by the geeks who discover those statistics we all love to cite is 1 in 75 million without ANY scanning (by contrast there is a 1 in 250,000 chance that the Apophis asteroid will hit Earth in 2032 and destroy an entire region of earth). In a nation like the United States that treasures individual freedom is is odd to me that courts here allow this kind of airport search. Right after the policy of airport searches became so oppressive to flyer someone sued to stop the searches and one U.S. District Court judge ruled that random pat downs could not be done because "A generalized fear of terrorism should not diminish the fundamental Fourth Amendment protection envisioned by our Founding Fathers".

He was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hmmmm I wonder if he wears those 4th Amendment underpants when he flies? Maybe we should do a flash naked protest at the airport scan site. Just have everyone rip off their clothes and show that their vital parts are innocent of terrorism. If arrested one could claim they are merely aiding in the search for rooting out terrorists, not being obscene. Insane searches may one day engender insane responses of protest to them.

Vietnam Trip

I got back from Vietnam Wednesday. Some lines about my trip today, and some pictures as well. I had a great time and my Vietnamese friend was wonderful to me. She arranged everything and was with me most of the time I was there. We both had a terrific time and plan to see each other again here in Portland next year. We flew to the Hue and Hanoi and stayed in each city several days in order to see "all the parts of Vietnam" in addition to the Ho Chi Minh area where I was based. Some brief impressions I have of Vietnam:

- I find Vietnam developing rapidly, as the communists give up that system and institute more capitalism the a country becomes wealthier and more westernized. I think Vietnam is as westernized as are most of the non communist/socialist nations in Asia.
- The Vietnamese people seem to like Americans and westerners. The memory of the war seems incidental rather than important to most Vietnamese
- It's extremely HOT there! Too hot for me to be in Vietnam for extended periods. But it did give me a great love for the wonderful icy fruit smoothie drinks that I consumed while there. They kept me hydrated and satiated and were my favorite food of Vietnam. Overall, the quality of food I had (I love the street food most of all) was good.
- My favorite city in Vietnam is Ho Chi Minh City, a more industrial and vibrant city. The people were very friendly there toward others. If I ever walked alone in Ho Chi Minh, I could not walk very long before being stopped and engaged in conversation. Quite a few Vietnamese speak enough English to hold an understandable conversation.
- My favorite tourist site was the Cu Chi tunnels outside of Hue. They were used by the North Vietnamese fighters to hide from the South Vietnamese and American armies during the war. I did descend into one of the cramped tunnels, and have great respect for anyone who could actually live in them, as did those during the Vietnam war.
- The strangest sights were watching pedestrians (me too) dodge the endless motorcycle traffic that goes wherever it wants, regardless of any traffic rules and regulations that might exist (there seems to be no pedestrian right of way in Vietnam). Many times I crossed traffic while in peril as motorcycles raced all about me. If one is afraid of traffic he or she will never cross a street in Vietnam, for traffic from motorcycles is constant.
- Vietnam is an inexpensive travel sight, and the many young (and mostly broke) westerner backpackers give testimony to it. I stayed in hotels and took inexpensive flights while there. They were comfortable and inexpensive. Yet there is a growing high end travel industry in Vietnam now that caters to the more luxury market. Still, I think Vietnam is a good place for a budget minded traveler to be comfortable by staying in 3 star hotels, eating in local food stalls rather than upscale restaurants (though those are a great and not so expensive bargain too).
- Always wear shorts and T shirts whenever possible. The heat makes it sensible wear for the visitor unaccustomed to the heat and humidity of Vietnam. My wisest trip decision was to pack lightly and only informal clothes.

Devilish Pact

That paranoia and hatred toward outsiders that we see every day from extremist Muslims is bad, but what about the same from a Muslim nation's government? There is all too much of it too, and now the worst of the oppressive Muslim hating nations, Saudi Arabia, has made an agreement with an American airline, Delta Airline, that contaminates it too. Uhm, Delta Air might have to rename itself Devil Air. After Delta and Saudi Arabia joined in one of those airport partnerships between a nation and an airline from another country that are so common today, it was revealed that there are a few rather undemocratic, bigoted and downright hateful practices, that Delta has agreed to in order to have a foot (and make big money) in the Arabian air market.

Jews from any nation and Israelis, or passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith, will not be able to fly on Delta flights to or from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans anyone with an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering the country, even if the passenger is just passing through to make a flight connection in a Saudi airport. So now, American Jews who fly Delta are banned from Delta planes that go through that country. Also non Arabic passengers who fly on Delta to or from Saudi Arabia and have religious items such as Bibles that are not related to Islam are subject to having them be confiscated at the airport.

It's incredible that a democratic nation like the U.S. has one of it's larger companies agreeing to discriminate against it's own people. The very idea that there is an American airline service that would deny an American citizen in America access to their services because they are Jewish or have religious items such as a yarmulke, a cross or a priestly collar, is bizarre. I think the public reaction to the news of this hateful policy will make Delta withdraw from the agreement with the crazy Saudi's. But still, it should never have happened in the first place.

What is Delta's defense for practicing Muslim style discrimination? It has issued a statement saying that, "Delta must also comply with all applicable laws in every country it serves. Passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents required for entry." Ugh...sounds like a press release 70 years ago that the democratic side who acquiesced to Hitler and his crowd before and during W.W.II made to justify their own discrimination. When making a pact with the devil that brings forth gold coins one can see a different rainbow. Delta may fly high, but it's Saudi route rainbow doesn't include non Muslims.

I wonder if the Saudi's and the rest of the bigoted Muslims would think it were ok to place similar restrictions on Muslims flying from the U.S. ? Suppose the U.S. government ordered its airlines to ban all items of Islamic worship on board any flight, as Saudi does ban any non Islamic icon.? Suppose the United States required all Muslims flying into, out of or through the U.S. to stop wearing traditional Arabic clothing when flying on U.S airlines? Suppose the U.S. prohibited Muslim prayers in public when in U.S airports or planes? I think the Saudi's might object to that kind of discrimination.

But of course, the U.S. would never practice such hatred, prohibit behavior and or oppress any of its Islamic citizens as the Saudi's do to non Muslims in that country. If anything, this deal with the devil that Delta Air has made shows us how making hate mainstream can contaminate just about anyone.

Princess Diana at 50

The furor of the late Princess Diana is perplexing. It's strange the media still promotes that wretched creature. Churchill once called Russia "a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Maybe Russia is hard to figure out sometimes. But an even bigger enigma to me is what was going on with the late Princess Diana's 50th birthday last month. People all over the world celebrated her "birthday' 14 years after she died in an automobile accident.

Newsweek magazine did a hypothetical cover story showing a computer generated Diana at age 50, with speculation about what she would be like and be doing if still alive. Sigh..why care? Diana was a silly lady, who cheated on her husband, dished dirty in private about the royal family, engaged in selfish and vacuous activities....you get the idea. Diana was a kind of reality star before reality TV started, full of image with little substance behind it. Yet, millions grovel to worship her.

On her actual birthday anniversary "worshippers" left birthday cards, a cake, a collage and other mementos at the gates of Kensington Palace, where Diana once lived. It's like other media celebs who die young, there is a kind of idealization that defies logic but that seems necessary to some as an emotional lift. Too bad those idolaters could not worship someone worthy like Mother Theresa, instead of a figure like Diana who was almost entirely false image.

Maybe this kind of activities represents the age in which we live, the age of silly instead of substance. We can see that nw in the fascination of so many with latest Royal couple, Prince William and new wife Kate Middleton. What a furor over nothing that wedding was. But I guess it is an escape for those whose own lives seem to them as less than princely, and a harmless activity.

Sexting Congressmen

The political world continues to turn in strange ways. I think the recent case of the Weiner Congresssman. I am a little confused these days about all the politicians who are sexting to women they intend to meet and impress though showing their vital body parts in pictures. So I have a few observations to make about it all.

The latest political sex scandal was that of a Congressman in New York named Anthony Weiner...yep as in his weenie that he thought so impressive. At least he has the right name for sending sexually suggestive invitations to others. It may be an excuse for him that he can use in court too. "Your honor, my parents are to blame for my proclivity to send pornographic pictures of my weenie. They should have named me something other than Weiner."

Congressman Weiner is married to a a very pretty and loving wife, yet he admits (but only after being caught) to having sexually charged relationships with women via Face book and Twitter. The young lady who didn't know Weiner until he surprised her with shots of his bulging weenie in underpants photos, turned him in by releasing to the media some of his weenie pictures. She apparently doesn't want to see a stranger's weenie, even if it is a congressional one.

I can understand a woman being attracted to a man who shows her his bulging bank statement or opulent mansion photos, but why would any man think that a picture of his bulge would enchant a lady? Just a few weeks ago another married New York congressman (there must be something in the water that makes those NYer's show their favorite body parts) resigned after it was disclosed that he E mailed shirtless pictures of himself to a woman he met on Craigslist. You can relax, I wouldn't show you my under pant bulge or shirtless body because, not only is it tawdry, but you would die laughing if you saw either. I suppose those Congressman are more proud of their bodies than most of the rest of us.

I wonder why they don't just find a hooker somewhere and show him or her their total package. It seems less risky than sexting dirty photos of themselves. But then, maybe they are addicted to sexual display and think the thrill of trying not to be nabbed by their ----- is an irresistible urge they can not resist.

Sometimes they start their sexting by making casual comments to see if there is enough interest to send bulging body part photos. Yet another New York Congressman, Eric Massa, was forced to resign last year because of a gay episode in which me made sexy comments ot a male staffer to see if he could get a "rise" from the victim. I can understand a gay man sending a bulge picture to another man because they are merely comparing essential body parts. ("Look at my love muscle! Can you beat that?") But why would a woman want a picture of a stranger's weenie?

Despite having to resign and losing his political career and probably his marriage, I think Anthony Weiner might just benefit from this whole scandal. Given the idiocy of our culture and the inane nature of Reality TV, I envision Anthony Weiner getting his own Reality TV show out of all of this mess. They could call it "Show Us Your Weiner".